How D&D Was Saved and Made It To 4e

[Raven Crowking]

Take Dancey's article with a huge grain of salt. Notable former TSR employees during that period, such as Monte Cook, have questioned its potrayal.

Indeed.

 

[Desdichado]

The glut of products killed 3E.

Uh... huh? No it didn't.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Uh... huh? No it didn't.

I beg to differ, my dear Hobo.

 

[BryonD]

Hobo is correct.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Hobo is correct.

Well, there you have it. Looks like I'm right.

 

[kenobi65]

An RPG can survive on fluff, AKA good adventures and setting materials. Most folks I know don't have the time to digest tons of rules or to write their own stuff. Obviously, gamer preferences vary, but not everyone who buys stuff is into additional rules.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Not everyone buys fluff, either.

It seems to me that there's a big chunk of DMs out there who write their own game world, their own adventures, and have limited use for fluff (particularly setting-specific fluff). Or, they only have use for one sort of fluff (e.g., I buy FR stuff, I have no use for Eberron).

Certainly, not everyone who plays buys splatbooks, either, but I think that most successful splatbooks are generic enough that they can be used in most settings.

 

[haakon1]

I'm not sure I agree with that. Not everyone buys fluff, either.

Sure. All I'm saying is that that "Complete Books" and rules-focused sales strategies are not necessary to keep D&D in business. AD&D was highly successful without that. It didn't feel like there were unnecessary rules books, and the fluff (the adventures) are the valuable intellectual property that keeps getting recycled in different formats.

It seems to me that there's a big chunk of DMs out there who write their own game world, their own adventures, and have limited use for fluff (particularly setting-specific fluff).

I haven't known anybody like that since AD&D in college. I suspect it's age related. People older than college age tend not to be able to devote as much leisure time to the game, and likely younger players don't have the skills to build a world, though they might try. Nevertheless, there's no reason you need "Complete Books of Rules" to build your own world. When I was doing that stuff, I was also making up my own critical hit tables, and using, like everyone else, the core AD&D books only.

Or, they only have use for one sort of fluff (e.g., I buy FR stuff, I have no use for Eberron).

Very true. If WOTC didn't want to split up the market, they should have never published Eberron. But it's quite possible to write adventures that fit "default" D&D world -- Greyhawk, FR, and the standard medieval European fantasy homebrew. Also, generic adventures with other cultural themes like Egypt or Vikings or fey fit most worlds.

Certainly, not everyone who plays buys splatbooks, either, but I think that most successful splatbooks are generic enough that they can be used in most settings.

The same goes for generic adventures.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Sure. All I'm saying is that that "Complete Books" and rules-focused sales strategies are not necessary to keep D&D in business. AD&D was highly successful without that. It didn't feel like there were unnecessary rules books, and the fluff (the adventures) are the valuable intellectual property that keeps getting recycled in different formats.

I disagree. I think you'll find that a lot of people bought the various Complete X's Handbook or Complete Book of X for AD&D and that those books were amongst the most successful sellers for that edition. I can't quote any actual numbers to back up my claim so it's just my anecdote vs yours (boy I'm building a strong argument here! ).

The other thing about various Complete books is that they are targeted at players and DM's. Adventures only target DM's, which account for about 20% of the market. Which product do you think will sell more? One that is targeting the whole market, or one that is targeting 20% of the market. Add to this the economies of scale you get by selling more copies of the same book (bigger prints runs mean less printing costs per book and the fixed costs, like art, writing and development are spread out over more books) and it is a no brainer for WotC to produce Complete-style books.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Spring 1997 - WotC acquires TSR; former TSR staff moves to Washington; development on 3rd Edition begins.
Autumn 2000 - 3rd Edition released.
Summer 2003 - 3.5 Edition released.
Summer 2008 - 4th Edition released.

Don't forget that WotC also republished the 2n Ed. Core Rulebooks.

 

[haakon1]

I disagree. I think you'll find that a lot of people bought the various Complete X's Handbook or Complete Book of X for AD&D and that those books were amongst the most successful sellers for that edition. I can't quote any actual numbers to back up my claim so it's just my anecdote vs yours (boy I'm building a strong argument here! ).

The other thing about various Complete books is that they are targeted at players and DM's. Adventures only target DM's, which account for about 20% of the market. Which product do you think will sell more? One that is targeting the whole market, or one that is targeting 20% of the market. Add to this the economies of scale you get by selling more copies of the same book (bigger prints runs mean less printing costs per book and the fixed costs, like art, writing and development are spread out over more books) and it is a no brainer for WotC to produce Complete-style books.

Olaf the Stout

No brainer if the short-term revenue guy or the uber-gamer "dwarf-needs-new-prestige-class" types own the game. But over the long-term, I'm sure there's more value in something like the Tomb of Horrors than something like the Complete Book of Woodland Races.

Of course, both can be recycled in every edition, but the Tomb of Horrors-type thing can be recycled as a computer game, a novel, a movie, etc. Complete Book of Woodland Races is always just game rules. I guess some of it could be hacked up and sold again as a new edition splatbook, though -- I'm sure we'll see some of that, as we saw in 3/3.5 splatbook repetition.

Creating lasting IP seems to be the ticket to long-term buckolas for media companies.

So, the question of milking media versus milking game is an interesting one to me. I wonder if WOTC makes more more money off FR/Eberron novels or splatbooks? I'm guessing the novels. Though the profit margin is likely much lower, since there's more competition, surely they sell more novels. I've never thought about this one before . . .

I also think there's a serious tradeoff between simplicity of the game (openness to new players) and selling splatbooks (selling to the x% of existing gamers that are hungry for any new rules, or the smaller % that are particularly interested in whatever particular subject the splatbook is about).

Of the people I game with (run 2 campaigns, played in 1 that's on hold until 4e because the DM moved), I'd diagnose:
- 3 have many splatbooks (all are DM types -- 1 actual DM, 2 without current campaigns)
- 3 + me have a few splatbooks related to stuff of partiular interest to the player
- 1 has PHB/DMG
- 5 have PHB only
- 4 borrow PHB's and own no books (most DM's I know have at least 2-3 PHBs for this reason)

So, from my D&D player universe, more splatbooks is not going to make much difference to sales. A better, "funner" game that sells more PHB's is the best way to generate revenue, and those modules with cool fluff should generate long-term IP . . . The funner, more open thing seems key to 4e's goals.